Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV23678, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23678    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 states, in pertinent part: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)¿ 

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350 provides, “[a] notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) [l]ist all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective¿ attorneys of record; (B) [c]ontain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) [b]e filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)(1).)¿ Rule 3.350 further provides, “[t]he motion to consolidate: (A) [i]s deemed a single motion for the purposes of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) [m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) [m]ust have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”¿ (Id., rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2).)¿ 

Further, Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g) states, “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”¿ (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g).)  Los Angeles County Court Rules, Rule 3.3(g) additionally states, “[b]efore consolidation of a limited case with an unlimited case, the limited case must be reclassified as an unlimited case and the reclassification fee paid.”  (Ibid.) 

Discussion

Defendants Maria Elena Garcia dba MG Trucking and Jason Otilio Garcia (collectively, “Defendants”) presently move for an Order consolidating the present action, bearing case number 21STCV23678, and a separate action, entitled Alireza M. Shekarchi, et al. v. Jason Otilio Garcia, et al. and bearing case number 22STCV22105 (hereinafter, “Shekarchi Action”).

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate previously came before the Court for hearing on January 25, 2023.  There, the Court determined the present action and the Shekarchi Action may be properly consolidated as the actions involve common questions of law and fact.  (Minute Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Consolidate, at p. 1 [“The Court finds that both cases arise from a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on August 14, 2020, and involve the same cause of action for motor vehicle and general negligence against Defendants. Thus, both actions involve common issues of law and fact.”].)  However, the Court identified the following two procedural errors associated with Defendants’ Motion, which precluded granting the same: (a) Defendants’ Motion did not comply with Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g) as the instant action and the Shekarchi Action have not yet been deemed related; and (b) Defendants’ Motion did not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, subdivision (a)(1) because Defendants have not filed the Notice of Motion to Consolidate in the Shekarchi Action.  The Court continued the hearing upon Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate to allow Defendants to remedy the aforementioned procedural errors.  The Court  now considers whether such procedural errors have been rectified.

The Court concludes, as of the date the Court authors the instant tentative ruling, Defendants have failed to correct either procedural error previously identified within the Court’s Minute Order.  Accordingly, motion is DENIED.

Conclusion

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

              Moving party is ordered to give notice.